Figure 1. Operating Models
Figure 2. MP stock assessment fits using data from 1980 and perfect biomass index
Figure 3. MP stock assessment fits using data from 1960 and perfect biomass index
[1] "RSS"
year
quantity 60 80
F 0.4721018 0.4676944
B 0.2948743 0.3712703
Figure 4. Comparison of current status (\(B/B_{MSY}\) and \(F/F_{MSY}\)) for OM and MP.
Figure 5. MP stock assessment fits using data from 1960 with prior for r and perfect biomass index
Figure 6. MP stock assessment fits using data from 1980 with prior for r and perfect biomass index
Figure 7. Indices, simulated.
Figure 8. Indices, actual
Figure 9. Selection pattern.
Figure 10. Indices, CPUE
Figure 11. Assessment for adult index using data from 1960
Figure 12. Assessment for adult index using data from 1980
Figure 13. Assessment for juvenile index using data from 1960
Figure 14. Assessment for juvenile index using data from 1980
Figure 15. Assessment for fisheries dependent index using data from 1960
Figure 16. Assessment for fisheries dependent index using data from 1980
Figure 17. Assessment for fisheries dependent index using data from 1960
Figure 18. Assessment for fisheries dependent index using data from 1980
Figure 19. Assessment for fisheries dependent index using data from 1960 and prior for r
Figure 20. Assessment for fisheries dependent index using data from 1960 and prior for r
Figure 21. Relationship between stock status havest rate (blue) and stock (red)
Table 1.
quantity index year prior r rmse sd.r sd.m sd
1 harvest perfect 1960 none 0.461 0.404 0.445 0.293 0.659
2 harvest perfect 1960 prior 0.431 0.417 0.445 0.308 0.693
3 harvest perfect 1980 none 0.807 0.336 0.445 0.149 0.335
4 harvest perfect 1980 prior 0.784 0.342 0.445 0.147 0.329
5 harvest juvenile 1960 none 0.250 1.637 0.445 1.694 3.805
6 harvest juvenile 1980 none 0.836 0.247 0.445 0.410 0.920
7 harvest adult 1960 none 0.217 1.737 0.445 1.782 4.003
8 harvest adult 1980 none 0.468 0.393 0.445 0.190 0.428
9 harvest exploit 1960 none 0.213 1.788 0.445 1.833 4.117
10 harvest exploit 1980 none 0.522 0.379 0.445 0.234 0.526
11 harvest mfcl 1960 none 0.269 1.703 0.445 1.772 3.979
12 harvest mfcl 1960 prior 0.325 1.270 0.445 1.346 3.023
13 harvest mfcl 1980 none 0.746 0.357 0.445 0.133 0.299
14 harvest mfcl 1980 prior 0.740 0.359 0.445 0.130 0.293
15 stock perfect 1960 none 0.497 0.300 0.344 0.209 0.608
16 stock perfect 1960 prior 0.391 0.326 0.344 0.217 0.630
17 stock perfect 1980 none 0.745 0.231 0.344 0.223 0.649
18 stock perfect 1980 prior 0.748 0.229 0.344 0.234 0.682
19 stock juvenile 1960 none 0.225 0.393 0.344 0.284 0.826
20 stock juvenile 1980 none 0.598 0.275 0.344 0.193 0.561
21 stock adult 1960 none 0.361 0.340 0.344 0.238 0.693
22 stock adult 1980 none 0.481 0.304 0.344 0.209 0.609
23 stock exploit 1960 none 0.337 0.382 0.344 0.320 0.929
24 stock exploit 1980 none 0.506 0.303 0.344 0.238 0.691
25 stock mfcl 1960 none 0.325 0.358 0.344 0.262 0.763
26 stock mfcl 1960 prior 0.342 0.350 0.344 0.254 0.739
27 stock mfcl 1980 none 0.685 0.252 0.344 0.200 0.582
28 stock mfcl 1980 prior 0.686 0.252 0.344 0.201 0.584
Figure 22. Comparison of current status (\(B/B_{MSY}\) and \(F/F_{MSY}\)) for OM and MP.
Figure 23. Kobe
Table 2. ratio between MP and MP values of \(B/B_{MSY}\) and \(F/F_{MSY}\)
mp f b
1 sa60mfcl 0.9140866 0.6730980
2 sa80mfcl 0.5423078 1.3389317
3 sa60mfcl.r 0.8632917 0.7143803
4 sa80mfcl.r 0.5332739 1.3406933
f b
1 1.27085 0.6795206